LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 10-11, 1974, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

who had been most complimentary and had even suggested issuing the paper jointly with the CTCR. The
Commission now worked thru this paper very carefully. After several changes had been made the
Commission formally adopted it. It then resolved to publish it in the Lutheran Witness and to request the
Public Relations Department to include it in its entirety in one of its mailings to all pastors and
congregational chairmen.
286. Committee of 20 (Ag. 719): Both Luessenhop and Klotz who had attended reported on the first
meeting of the Committee of 20. They seem to agree that not much had been accomplished but that work
needed to continue.
287. Preus Paper on District Presidents (Ag. 724): The paper which Dr. J.A.O. Preus read to the recent
meeting of the Council of Presidents on the respective roles of District Presidents, the Council of
Presidents, and the synodical President was distributed to members of the Commission.
288. Proposed N.O. Res. 5-05 on Presidential Authority (Ag. 627): This resolution which had come under
the omnibus resolution was referred by the Board of Directors to the Commission for study and report to
the next convention. The Commission decided to include in its report to the convention an endorsement of
this floor committee resolution.
289. Official Conferences (Ag. 673): The Board of Directors had also referred this proposed resolution to
the Commission for the same purpose. Since this proposed resolution gave approval to bylaws which had
been recommended to the New Orleans convention by the Commission itself, the Commission decided to
recommend adoption of the proposed bylaws to the Anaheim convention.
290. Senske on Markworth Case (Ag. 693): Dr. Al Senske had written to the Secretary raising some
pointed questions about the Ken Markworth case in the Central Illinois District. The Secretary had replied
as follows:
1.

Staff members carry out the will of the board. They are not held equally responsible by the
Synod. The Synod holds the board responsible and the board in carrying out its responsibility
is assisted by its staff members, who certainly need to carry out the instructions of the board.

2.

A person who is a member of the Synod always has the right to follow the route leading
eventually to the Board of Appeals. In a congregation the appeals procedure may be
altogether different. There the appeal of a minority member of the board or of a teacher
might well be to the voter's assembly unless the congregation sets up other procedures.

The Commission ratified this reply.
291. Meeting Date: The date of the next meeting was moved from December 13-14 to December , 9:00
a.m. to December 7, 3:00 p.m.
292. Board of Control, St. Louis, Problem (no exhibit): In the closing moments of the meeting, during the
discussion of the next item, there was a flurry caused by the transmittal of copies of several letters
regarding Dr. Tietjen's refusal to appear at the current Board of Control meeting on the plea that he
needed to fulfill a family obligation in Northfield, Minnesota. It seemed that Dr. Preus and Dr. Weber
wanted some ruling from the Commission. However, the Commission formally resolved that Prevaslet
call Dr. Preus and state that the Board of Control has hired a competent attorney to represent it and
another one to protect the interest of Dr. Tietjen, that the Synod itself has a general counsel readily
available, and that the Commission had received no specific question to which it could address itself and